Atheist Group Takes Issue With Faith-Based Group’s Sex Ed Curriculum in Public Schools

CHESTERFIELD, Mo. — A prominent professing atheist group is expressing its objection after discovering that a number of school districts in Missouri are allowing a faith-based organization to teach sexual education classes, urging students to remain abstinent until marriage.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) states that a member informed the group that the organization Thrive has been teaching sex ed in local schools. Thrive operates several crisis pregnancy centers near St. Louis, including a mobile facility, offering free or low-cost services including pregnancy testing and ultrasounds.

FFRF issued letters last week urging Missouri school districts to discontinue its use of Thrive, citing that the organization is a Christian organization, and that it aims to share the gospel with clients. It also noted that Thrive does not provide abortion referrals or contraceptives.

“Thrive does not offer any kind of birth control, emergency contraception or abortions, nor will it make referrals for these medical services,” FFRF wrote in its complaint letter.

The group additionally took issue with Thrive’s abstinence curriculum.

“The Thrive sex education curriculum, which it calls ‘Best Choice,’ consists of little more than scare tactics and shaming students who choose to have sex,” FFRF asserted.

“The program’s activities suggest that sexually active teens are dirty, particularly those who have had more than one partner, suggesting that virtually all of them will contract an STD while apparently offering no information that any activity other than total abstinence can decrease the chance of pregnancy or contracting an STD,” it griped.

FFRF likewise noted that the organization only hires Christians, which it called a form of discrimination, and expressed concern that Thrive might be promoting religion to students.

“There is significant risk that Thrive’s curriculum will promote religion to students, given Thrive’s overt religious mission regarding sex and pregnancy, the Best Choice program’s promotion of spirituality, and Thrive’s requirement that its employees be practicing Christians who ‘share the love of Jesus’ with patients,” it wrote.

The church-state separation group is therefore asking that schools do not allow Thrive to teach sex ed in the future.

“If the district wishes to use sex education instructors or curriculum designers who are not district employees, they should be medical professionals, not members of a faith-based anti-abortion ministry,” FFRF contended.

According to reports, a few school districts in the St. Louis area have recently dropped Thrive after a handful of parents complained that the group was teaching abstinence to students.

“What I would really like to see is a curriculum that is sex-positive instead of being all about shame,” parent Caleb Friz told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It should be out in the open: this is normal, this is part of our bodies and let’s talk about this. It’s an important part of being a human being.”

But parent Michelle Butler said she appreciates that the organization is encouraging students to save sex for marriage.

“It presents thorough content about STDs and risky behaviors, and talks a lot about healthy boundaries in relationships,” she said. “It talks about the emotional consequences to sex and not just the physical consequences.”

Thrive President Bridget Van Means opined that the organization is being discriminated against because of its faith.

“These individuals have started, from the beginning, assuming that because we are faith-based, we have no place in schools,” she said. “Discrimination and prejudice cuts both ways.”

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 reads, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work?Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

Shane Egan

Abstinence focussed programs have been consistently shown to have worse outcomes in terms of number of abortions resulting from unwanted pregnancies as well as STDs. Why does the Christian right who seems so vigourously anti-abortion actually not look at the real data and realise that using their faith-based approach does not achieve their goals?

I know that looking at actual evidence is not the foundation of their worldview, but shouldn’t the desire to save the unborn take priority over rigid adherence to a failing strategy?

Sisyphus

If educators don’t talk frankly about an important issue, hopefully it will magically turn out the way they want.

Mr Cleats

This will bring out all the usual pedo trolls.

Johndoe

Like you??

Michael C

Education should provide all of the information, not just one religious group’s personal perspective. That’s what education means. If a school is going to have sex-ed curriculum and if they’re going to discuss abstinence, they should also educate students about safer sex and the varying types of contraceptives/birth control and their efficacy.

Also, the state should not be contracting work from organizations that discriminate in employment on the basis of religion.

0pus

Anorexic fairy,
you sucked off any little boys today?

Sharon_at_home

Why would anyone who is not Christian want a job in a Christian business (like this one?) they would have to follow the rules that are laid out by Christians that are in line with their faith. Unless they are trying to rock the boat, I can’t imagine why anyone would work in a job that contradicts their own beliefs

Rookheight

Michael’s point is that when the Christian business explicitly says that you have to be Christian to work there, public schools should not be contracting with them to teach students. I agree completely.

Michael C

Thrive gets paid by the government for the sex-ed courses that they provide for the school system. This is not a religious service. There should be nothing religious about this service. The state government wouldn’t be paying a business to perform religious functions in a school. An employee’s ability to perform the functions of sex-ed instruction has no bearing on their religious beliefs. The state should not be paying a business to discriminate against members of their very own community.

Missouri prohibits for-profit and not-for-profit businesses who have government contracts from discriminating against employees on the basis of their religion within the scope of the contract.

To make it clearer for you, the school can contract a company called “Cleaning for Jesus” to manage their janitorial needs, but Cleaning for Jesus can’t require all of the janitors emptying the school waste baskets to be Christian.

And to directly answer your question;

Why would anyone who is not Christian want a job in a Christian business (like this one?) they would have to follow the rules that are laid out by Christians…?

Wherever anyone chooses to work, they have to follow the rules laid out by others. Businesses are prohibited by law from forcing their employees to live their lives according to the employers personal religious beliefs.

A person would work for a company because they’re qualified for the position and they want a paycheck. I have friends who work for businesses that are owned by Christians (“Christian businesses”). The businesses are prohibited by law from requiring their employees to engage in religious activities or make any sort of statement of faith. I have one friend who works in IT for a care facility company owned by Christians. Working with computer networks does not “contradict his own beliefs” just because the owners of the business are Christian.

bowie1

What are they worried about, that Planned Parenthood might lose some abortion business thus cutting into their profits?

InTheChurch

Bingo, the two evil empires work together.

Netizen_James

The REALITY is that abstinence-only education leads to MORE abortions.
Is that what you want? Or not?
Are the precious little embryos more important than pushing a religious agenda through the public schools? Or not?

InTheChurch

Can you show the stats on that? proof please?

Rookheight

look up states that have the most abstinence-only sex education and states that have the most abortions. You will see a striking correlation.

Sharon_at_home

Do you believe that ONLY the girls who were trying to abstain from sex are the ones that get pregnant and have abortions? Not likely. Even knowing all about the way to avoid pregnancy, teenagers are usually ‘in the moment’ and don’t always do the right thing at that point. Plus the fact that there is no protection from pregnancy that is 100% so accidents will still be happening. Are there separate studies showing who was abstaining and who wasn’t? Besides, even if a teenager is only taught abstinence at school, it doesn’t mean the parents don’t get involved at home.

Rookheight

I agree with basically everything you said, and it’s a great argument for teaching comprehensive sex ed, rather than “abstinence only.” As you said, teenagers are often too “in the moment” to make safe choices, regardless of what you teach them. That’s why you can’t just tell them “don’t have sex” and call it a day, because many of them will, in fact, have sex anyway. It’s not surprising that areas where teenagers are taught about birth control in some depth have less teenage pregnancy, and thus less abortions, as well as less STDs.

We also agree that parents can fix bad education at home, but why not just teach kids correctly at school? Not all students have the benefit of parents who are willing to talk to them about sex, much less to give them comprehensive and medically accurate information.

It sounds like you have thought this through, so I can’t figure out why you would be arguing for abstinence-only sex ed. Can you explain?

Sharon_at_home

I guess I believe in what God told us to follow. All of His commandments are intended to give us more than what the world can give us.

It’s something I’ve thought through, as you say, .
When I was young, girls that “put out” were not someone people wanted to use as a role model. I don’t understand, do mothers not suggest virginity to the kids anymore?
I guess I can’t imagine wanting your kid to have sex before a commitment. I wouldn’t want to see my kids heartbroken when sex was the only thing that mattered in their relationship – because it kept them together, until one of them decides they want the freedom to date others.
Having sex with multiple partners, especially in this day and age, it’s dangerous even with precautions.
I’d rather hope a daughter would be able to discern whether the boy just wants sex or not. It’s not always easy I know, but if you stay a virgin, and he still wants to be dating, you can be more confident that it isn’t all he wants. And getting to know each other is easier too because sex isn’t in the equation and so the relationship is stronger even before sex is brought into it.

People don’t even try to stop themselves from temptations in today’s society, nor are they encouraged to try because every thing is OK + because it’s happening all over. People used to be focusing on what they should be doing, instead of what everyone else is doing.

To me Temptation is something to be overcome, not something to give into. Even before I joined my church I always avoided temptation so I guess it a way of life for me.

Rookheight

I don’t share your perspective, but I think I understand it and I really don’t have any problem with it when it comes to public school sex ed.

I think that you may be assuming that teaching comprehensive sex ed means that we no longer recommend abstinence, but that’s not the case at all. Based on everything I’ve seen or heard from sex ed curricula and instructors, nobody is encouraging public school kids to have premarital sex, even once they are adults. They’re just saying that there are risks associated with having sex, abstinence is the only way to be sure you avoid those risks, BUT if you do decide to have sex, you need to do whatever you can to protect yourself and your partner.

I think you’d agree that the religious lessons you mentioned should be taught by parents, not by public school teachers. Don’t you think that public schools should give students a complete, accurate picture of the whole process, while encouraging them to remain abstinent? If so, you should oppose the types of programs discussed in this article.

Lexical Cannibal

I don’t recall if this site lets me post links. If you remember that they do, let me know and I’ll gladly link my findings.

From what I can tell, we’ve actually been accumulating good data on this for a while now and it’s a pretty steady trend. In 2008, a study out of University of Washington found that students who got comprehensive sex ed were a whopping 60% less likely to get or get someone else pregnant. This was only one year after a federal report found no significant correlation between abstinence only programs and actual teen abstinence as compared to doing nothing at all. Accross the board, states which do not require sex ed and/or set abstinence only as the standard rank highest in teen pregnancy, Mississippi being a regular leader, while states which require comprehensive sex ed consistently trend lower, sometimes quite drastically. Just last year there was something of a to-do over Colorado releasing the results of its statewide policy concerning sex ed and contraceptive availability, demonstrating that after implementing a comprehensive sex ed program and expanding the availability of contraceptive services, teen pregnancy rates and STD rates had dropped precipitously if I recall.

Of course, as with most things, the data is ever evolving and while these trends are apparently predictable there may yet be undiscovered pieces to this puzzle, but as it stands now, being pro life and anti sex ed seems somewhat self defeating.

Ambulance Chaser

Oh, let me. I know how this game works.

First I’ll accuse the University of Washington of being a liberal school from a liberal state, therefore the study is biased. Then I’ll dig up some quote by the author(s) and present it out of context to to cast doubt on their credibility. Then, if I can’t find that, I’ll just assassinate their character.

The one thing I will definitely NOT do is read the study, consider its methodology and findings, and present and educated, well reasoned critique of it.

Lexical Cannibal

Haha, see, this is why I take breaks from these places; they’ll make you salty and jaded if you hang about too long!

InTheChurch

Not the actual link but the article name and date. I have done that.
I agree with those finds. I have no issues with education. I am on your side with it. What I am saying; sex education plus abstaining can be work together. If you are going to have it; protect, condom, pills and so on. here are the consequences of it; pregnancy, STD and so on. but, abstaining is good to. No issue if you don’t participate. you are not strange or less if you abstain. In the church, we can do the same thing but add what the Bible says about it.

Lexical Cannibal

The specific article is titled “Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy” lead by Pamela K. Kohler, published in a 2008 edition of the Journal of adolescent health. The other two bits I referenced are really more news items, but I’m sure the primary sources are kicking around somewhere.

My question to you then becomes, though, that if comprehensive sex ed lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies and, by proxy, the rate of abortions, how is pushing back against abstinence only ed aiding Planned Parenthood? I’m not seeing how the narrative bears out, here.

InTheChurch

I hope I don’t sound ignorant on this one. You lost me when you mentioned PP. I understand what PP does. they assist a woman on making some tough choices and also prevent them from making future tough choices. PP can help with prevention, education and even abstinence.

Lexical Cannibal

I feel like we may have had a misunderstanding here. Follow me on this one.

This thread starts with bowie taking a snipe by implying that the FFRF is working to increase Planned Parenthood’s business by trying to remove abstinence education. Kind of formulaic, but that’s what he said.

You reply, saying that it’s “two evil empires [working] together,” the implication being that the two “evil” empires are FFRF and PP.

Then James up there gives an (admittedly hostile) rebuttal, stating that abstinence only education leads to more abortions, as compared to comprehensive sex ed, which I backed up with data upon your request. From where I sit, at some point you shifted from calling Planned Parenthood an “Evil Empire” to “[assisting] a woman on making some tough choices” and I’m not sure when we made that transition.

Also, speaking on an aside, I did want to address something else you said before it got buried. You seem to suggest a synthesis of “comprehensive sex ed” and “abstinence sex ed,” saying “sex education plus abstaining can be work together. If you are going to have it; protect, condom, pills and so on. here are the consequences of it; pregnancy, STD and so on.” Perhaps this is another misunderstanding, but if this is the case, then you should know that this is already how comprehensive sex ed works; you get information about how to do it safely, what can happen if you don’t, and (especially if the program is good) how to decide if you’re ready.

InTheChurch

I was feeling the same as you, like the subject was getting away from us. Thank you for bringing it back. I admit that I was making a bad joke with my reply. But, you came in with some great data. And I agree with it.
I’m for all sex education and that includes abstaining, if possible. I am for the whole teaching of the subject. Plus, I want the church to teach it right and stop making it a taboo. Sex is great, makes babies and so on. The church needs to stop running around it and just talk about it from the pulpit. The church is horrible at walking around subjects and it needs to stop for the health of the church and the people.

Sharon_at_home

My church gets right to the point – but Only if it is in the scriptures. It isn’t walking around subjects it’s standing up for our belief that God wrote the bible to make our lives easier by helping us understand how to live well among the people around you. People focus too much on the Old Testament without knowing why the things happened, but only that they know the story, especially about the wars etc.
Abstinence does not mean just not having sex – it also means that they are taught how to avoid getting into situations that create the environment for sex. Passionate kissing is one that often results in sex for instance. So it teaches that before it gets too impassioned that they should stop.
Abstinence points to the fact that sex should not be the major factor in a relationship too.
Just because we stick to our faith when it comes to some issues, doesn’t mean we don’t understand the issues in the world. It means we don’t agree with what the world is doing in that regard.
I feel like people today can’t accept anyone disagreeing with them at all. It’s always demands that you MUST accept this, whether you do or not. What ever happened to agreeing to disagreeing?

InTheChurch

I agree.

Rookheight

I don’t think anyone is saying that you have to agree with them. It’s just that public schools are not the place to be pushing faith-based beliefs.

Chris

“Abstinence does not mean just not having sex – it also means that they are taught how to avoid getting into situations that create the environment for sex”

The trouble with such an approach is that it can become obsessive. For example one school even warned their students off looking at anyone of the opposite sex. The students called boys and girls looking at each other “making eye babies”. 🙂

With that sort of upbringing how are they going to become fully functioning adults? How are they going to behave when they are married?

Sharon_at_home

Why would abstaining from sex restricts them from becoming “fully functioning adults?
I don’t understand what you mean – how are they going to behave when they are married.
For one thing, their relationship will be stronger because sex wasn’t the most important thing during dating. They have time to get to know each other without the pressure of having sex. If anything, marriages based in faith are often stronger and last longer.

Chris

“Why would abstaining from sex restricts them from becoming “fully functioning adults?”

Because if that’s all that’s on offer people have become obsessed with abstaining from anything and everything that even looks like it might lead to sex.

“I don’t understand what you mean – how are they going to behave when they are married.”

Well let’s go back to the Christian school I mentioned. If boys and girls won’t even look at each other, let alone get to know each other, how are they supposed to behave around each other?

“For one thing, their relationship will be stronger because sex wasn’t the most important thing during dating.”

But it is. It becomes something to obsess about NOT doing.

“They have time to get to know each other without the pressure of having sex.”

How? If they’re supposed to avoid anything that might lead to sex that would include time together.

“If anything, marriages based in faith are often stronger and last longer.”

You would think so but the facts don’t seem to bare that out. For example born again Christians have a higher rate of divorce than atheists. Statistically the marriage of couples has a greater chance of success if the couple live together first.

Sharon_at_home

First of all not all teenagers would obsess about abstinence. If they are taught abstinence they are taught to stay away from situations and are usually given suggestions on how to avoid those. Teenagers often have dates at the homes so there isn’t as much chance of having sex. Parents put a damper on them having sex.
You obviously just think about sex. How about trips to the library, or to a concert or to a restaurant. They can obviously learn about each other better because they don’t spend their time together having sex. Learning about each other with regards to sex is something they are taught should be after they are married.
Ok I googled it and got a mix of answers; there was ‘it was higher than others that divorce’ and there was it was ‘equal to other rates of divorce’, and there were articles suggesting there are ‘fewer’.
If you have faith in God, the problems in marriage are solved by using their faith, so if there are any divorces between couples of faith, one of them (or both) lost their faith.
The divorce rates are higher because the generations after mine have been told that if it doesn’t work there is always divorce. They often don’t even try to get past the thing that is breaking them up before they talk about divorce. Sex increased in teenagers when sex was allowed in movies and tv and was made to seem like it isn’t such a big deal.

Chris

“First of all not all teenagers would obsess about abstinence. If they
are taught abstinence they are taught to stay away from situations and
are usually given suggestions on how to avoid those.”

And since those situations would come up quite often they would tend to obsess over them. Especially since that’s the ONLY form of birth control they know.

“Teenagers often
have dates at the homes so there isn’t as much chance of having sex. Parents put a damper on them having sex. ”

Oh won’t that be fun. And since, in teenagers the hormones are rather high who want’s to be those same teens won’t be rushing off to find a quiet spot?

“You obviously just think about sex.”

When I was a teen? Yep. It was on my mind most of the time.

“How about trips to the library, or to a concert or to a restaurant. They can obviously learn about each other better because they don’t spend their time together having sex.”

But you just wrote they’d be spending their dates at home with their parents. Now they’re going to restaurants?

“Learning about each other with regards to sex is something they are taught should be after they are married.”

So no exploring each other’s fantasies, no seeing if their sex drives are compatible. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

“Ok I googled it and got a mix of answers; there was ‘it was higher than others that divorce’ and there was it was ‘equal to other rates of divorce’, and there were articles suggesting there are ‘fewer’.”

Many of the ones suggesting there were fewer among conservative Christians were essentially saying that their theory contradicted the facts so they’ll go with the theory. Not an honest way to do research. Others have suggested that economic condition plays a part. What is clear is that Agnostics, Atheists, Catholics, and Lutherans have a much lower divorce rate.

“If you have faith in God, the problems in marriage are solved by using their faith, so if there are any divorces between couples of faith, one of them (or both) lost their faith.”

Is that what we see here? Are the Christians here using their faith to understand those who disagree with them? Or are they using their faith to feel entitled to judge them?

“The divorce rates are higher because the generations after mine have been told that if it doesn’t work there is always divorce. They often don’t even try to get past the thing that is breaking them up before they talk about divorce.”

Then why is the divorce rate lower among atheists and agnostics? Weren’t they told the same thing?

“Sex increased in teenagers when sex was allowed in movies and tv and was made to seem like it isn’t such a big deal.”

Depends which movies you’re watching. As to the movies in general, they emphasize sex because, to most people, it is a big part of their lives.

Tangent002

Abstinence-only education is less effective than comprehensive relationship education.

Michael C

Only teaching abstinence has been positively correlated with higher teen pregnancy rates.

Comprehensive sex education that includes information on safer sex practices and contraceptive methods reduces the rates of unwanted pregnancies, therefor reducing the number of abortions. These rates are further lowered when abstinence education is included within the curriculum.

bowie1

In my own case sex education came in my high school years (1966-1970) showing also slides demonstrating how reproduction took place. I believe this was part of health class if memory serves me correct. At least at that age it is more age appropriate.

Rookheight

A lot of kids start having sex in middle school. Waiting until high school to teach them how reproduction works is a huge mistake.

Copyleft

If conservative Christians wanted to drive down the number of abortions, they’d be backing comprehensive sex education all the way. It’s proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies FAR more than the Bristol Palin approach.

InTheChurch

So sleeping around and getting an STD is better than……….

TheLastHonestLawyer

Having access to contraception and actual facts about sex is better than the alternatives.

Amos Moses

Yeah … No ……

Sexual abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that you won’t become a mommy or a daddy until you’re ready. (No stretch marks, no crying babies, no poopy diapers – until you’re ready!)

Sexual abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that you won’t get an STD. (While latex condoms can help prevent some STDs, they are not nearly 100% effective. Condoms don’t prevent against HPV, gonorrhoea, or genital herpes among many other STDs)

Having sex with an individual has psychological repercussions. If there is a breakup, increased chances of depression and unstable mental health are higher.

Practising sexual abstinence is a great way to get to know your boundaries and develop a stronger relationship emotionally and spiritually with the person you are dating.

You won’t need to hide anything from your parents or your friends, which takes a lot of pressure off your back and helps strengthen your relationship with them.

You will know that the person you are with, is with you for YOU. Your personality, your interests, and all of the great things about you besides sexuality.

Statistics show that teens who practise sexual abstinence are less likely to have depression, less likely to attempt suicide, less likely to live in poverty as adults.

Statistics show that teens who practise sexual abstinence are likely to do better in school. (Twice as likely to graduate from college than teens who do not practise abstinence).

Ambulance Chaser

Assuming all of that were true, how do you plan to get teens to have less sex?

Tangent002

Don’t you know kids always take heed of the sage advice of adults?

Amos Moses

one ….. it is not an assumption ….. it is obvious ….. unless you reject truth …….

two ….. it is a parents job ………..

Ambulance Chaser

That doesn’t answer my question.

Rookheight

None of this matters, because teens will have sex at the same rate whether you try to scare them into being abstinent or not. That’s a fact.

The only question is whether you help those teens who DO choose to have sex, or whether you just let them try to figure it out on their own.

Amos Moses

“None of this matters, because teens will have sex”

nope …. let me fix that for you …… “ALL of this matters, because teens will have sex” …..
there you go ……..

Rookheight

How are the benefits of abstinence relevant to teens who will be having sex regardless of what you tell them? What point are you even trying to make?

InTheChurch

So a christian can’t teach those things?

TheLastHonestLawyer

Of course they can. Anyone can. The problem is this group was not teaching effective sex education, but rather an explicitly religious abstinence-only message with a clear Christian message.

Which is fine in a church, or a rented public hall, or on a soapbox in the park. But (and here we go again) is not allowed in the public schools.

I’m a bit passionate about this because I grew up Muslim in California’s Central Valley. My parents were from Jordan and Lebanon. I know first hand what religious establishment in the schools feels like to an outsider. It sucks.

If these districts want to get realistic information about sex to young people, awesome. But get people trained in the field to do it, not a group that is going to try to convince horny teenagers who don’t care about authority in the first place not to do what their bodies are telling them to do.

InTheChurch

Are you still in the valley? if you are, we are neighbors.
We do live (or lived) in a very uneducated area. The last census shows that the educated are the minority compared to drop outs. I am for all sex education options and I am a christian. I went to school and have an education. You are right, sex education with the biblical addition should be in the church. I have no issue with that. I would welcome discussions of all sex education and abstinence added to that option in school.

TheLastHonestLawyer

We moved to Santa Clara County after I retired.

Teaching that abstinence is the absolute best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs is fine. But you have to teach that as a choice to be made by the person, and then teach all the other things kids need to know about sex.

InTheChurch

Yes, I agree. Teach the whole subject and not just bits and pieces.

Chris

I taught in a Catholic girls school. They gave comprehensive sex-ed classes as part of the RE classes. The message seemed to be ‘it’s better if you don’t do it until marriage, but here’s what to do if you do it anyway.’

InTheChurch

I can agree to that. We can have sex education training that is open and all options are discussed.

Chris

Exactly so.

A3Kr0n

“we have no place in schools,” she said
That’s right. Stay away.

JustThink

For progressives, the only sacred thing in life is sex. So they want to get the kids started as early as possible, and prey on as many as they can. The reason they constantly talk about pedophile priests is that it’s a nice distraction from the thousands of pedophile teachers.

William of Glynn

Conservatives think a lot about gay sex.

Jason Todd

Troll post. Flagged.

Rookheight

I’ll have you know that doing drugs and eating babies are sacred as well. /s/

JustThink

Socopaths joking about pedophilia. You people are the lowest of the low.

William of Glynn

Amen!

Netizen_James

You mean like Douglas Allison? Or Donald Mansell? Or Michael Copithorne? Or Shawn Baxley? Or don’t those ‘count’ because those were all Christian teachers at Christian schools?

JustThink

Only Christian prey on children?
Thanks for posting that. I never knew that before.
Kill all the Christians, and there will be no more pedophiles left.
Is that how it works?

Got lots of names of gay male teachers arrested for preying on their male students.

How many names and links would you like to see?

Croquet_Player

You’d think after so many years of failed “abstinence only” policy someone would wake up. States which taught “abstinence only” and did not offer comprehensive, fact-based sex-ed, consistently had the highest rates of teen pregnancy and teen STD transmission. So, if you’d like to have whole lot of pregnant teens with STDs in your state, by all means, use this approach. On the other hand, if you’d like healthier teens with far lower pregnancy rates, teach comprehensive sex-ed.

JustThink

Hey, stupid, abstinence does not “fail.” Virgins do not get pregnant. Virgins do not get STDs.

Amazing how ignorant you leftards are, you don’t even understand how conception takes place or how STDs are spread.

Seriously dumb.

Michael C

Only teaching abstinence =/= Abstinent teens

JustThink

Yeah, you just keep right on thinking that abstinent teens get pregnant.
Do you also believe the stork story?

Chris

I know fundies have trouble listening so I’ll repeat what the others are saying. Even after your preferred classes teenagers are still having sex. What was that? Even after your preferred classes teenagers are still having sex. One more time. Even after your preferred classes teenagers are still having sex.

Sharon_at_home

So do mothers no longer tell their daughters to stay virgins and not to have sex before marriage? (Maybe the parents even point out the other options that schools miss.)

The girls that “sleep around” are they held up as good examples to follow or as bad examples?
When a girl gets pregnant, in high school, do they all celebrate? Or do a lot of the kids avoid eye contact with those girls,and the boys either go for her because she’s not a virgin (after the baby) or stay away from her because she isn’t? (or because she has a baby)I’m just wondering how much it has changed over the years when it comes to social expectations from their peers.

Michael C

Huh?

I don’t understand how these questions relate to my comment. Are they intended to be rhetorical or something?

Perhaps you could ask these questions of a teenager.

Rookheight

I hope you’re not a Christian, arguing that “virgins do not get pregnant.”

Nobody said “abstinence fails.” Croquet_Player said, correctly, that abstinence-only sex education fails. This has been proven in study after study. And, since the whole concept is religion-based, it’s unconstitutional to teach in public schools. There is literally no reason any school should be teaching abstinence only.

Netizen_James

What is ‘seriously dumb’ is pretending that ‘abstinence only’ sex education results in teenagers abstaining from sex. What is ‘seriously dumb’ is pretending that teenagers will abstain from sex no matter WHAT fires of hell you threaten them with. What is ‘seriously dumb’ is not offering teens any information about contraceptives, or about the fact that oral sex ‘counts’ as ‘sex’, or that you can get an STD even without penile-vaginal penetration (aka while still a ‘virgin’). What is ‘seriously dumb’ is not offering teens information about partner-violence and sexual harassment and consent/rape issues. What is SERIOUSLY DUMB is pretending that ‘waiting for marriage’ is in any way typical or normal these days. It’s not. MOST couples have sex, and even live together, LONG before they even CONSIDER starting to THINK about marriage.

JustThink

Hey, I got the message: Abstinent teens get pregnant.
You’ll be getting your Nobel Prize in science any day now.
LOL. It’s 2017, and there are morons who don’t even know how conception takes place. Amazing.

Ambulance Chaser

No, that’s not “the message.” You’re not even listening. Read what we said again.

This style 10/6

Do you read your own stuff! Seriously, do and maybe you’ll see how stupid it looks.

Copyleft

Your name is quite ironic, considering how hard you’re refusing to think…..

JustThink

Most AIDS-infected people have dementia, so you really are not in a place to judge other’s mental capacities.

tatoo

The Virgin Mary did.

Sisyphus

Virgins can get STDs, there are multiple paths of transmission for various STDs…

JustThink

Sure, sure,….
And abstinent teens get pregnant.
Yep, you folks are wizards in science….

Tina

Wow! You really don’t get it, do you? I’m sorry, but you’re reaction to this speaks volumes. You must not have ever had a good sex life. That’s really very sad because sex is awesome and normal.

JustThink

You sound like someone very experienced with STDs.
However, most parents do not wish for their daughters to turn out to be immoral trash. So you should learn to respect people who have different standards than you. Decent people do not allow themselves to be objectified into semen receptacles. You couldn’t possibly understand.

Tina

How dare you! What kind of person says that about another persons child I do respect other people’s beliefs, but when our public schools are flat out lying to our kids, I take that very seriously. I guess you’re okay with lying to kids? It appears you’ve got nothing better to do than to be a hateful little person.

JustThink

No one forced you to visit a Christian blog and spew your hate.

Tina

Hate? I didn’t suggest that you’re very experienced with STDs and that you’re turning your daughter into an immoral piece of trash, did I? You’re the one spewing hate. Are you really a Christian?

Tina

Crickets…..

Copyleft

Sometimes it seems that hate is all that Christians have to offer, and certainly the only thing they care about.

Sharon_at_home

Then you are meeting the wrong Christians! Yea we do care about hate, but only because we want to stop the hatred. Anyone who endorses hatred is not following Jesus.

JustThink

No one is forcing you to read Christian blogs, girl.

Sisyphus

“Virgins do not get STDs.”. <— Your words; a female's hymen could be intact but can get HPV, HIV, herpes, Chlamydia and others orally or anally…Is that sciency enough for you?

Tangent002

A girl who has never had intercourse could also get pregnant if she didn’t exercise appropriate hygiene after mutual heavy petting.

Sharon_at_home

That’s why when they are taught abstinence, they are taught not to go to the point of heavy petting – especially to the point that you are describing must happen.
Avoiding the obvious paths into a sexually filled ending, is one of the things abstinence teaches.

Rookheight

And here we have the result of a child who did not receive comprehensive sex education…

JustThink

I’m sure your idea of “comprehensive sex education” would involve someone like yourself using a child for sex. That is illegal and immoral. You are hoping to live long enough to see pedophilia legalized, but we intend to fight very hard to keep you away from our children.

Rookheight

wtf are you talking about? You’re the one who brought up pedophilia out of nowhere. Is it on your mind a lot?

Ambulance Chaser

Or comprehensive reading education…

Chris

Troll

james blue

The wording was “abstinence only” policy not “abstinence”

Teaching “abstinence only” does not prevent pregnancies. We know this by the pregnancy rates.

If a teen gets pregnant it’s because abstinence education failed and birth control education failed, 1 because they had sex and 2 because they had unprotected sex.

Amos Moses

Sexual abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that you won’t become a mommy or a daddy until you’re ready. (No stretch marks, no crying babies, no poopy diapers – until you’re ready!)

Sexual abstinence is the only 100% guarantee that you won’t get an STD. (While latex condoms can help prevent some STDs, they are not nearly 100% effective. Condoms don’t prevent against HPV, gonorrhoea, or genital herpes among many other STDs)

Having sex with an individual has psychological repercussions. If there is a breakup, increased chances of depression and unstable mental health are higher.

Practising sexual abstinence is a great way to get to know your boundaries and develop a stronger relationship emotionally and spiritually with the person you are dating.

You won’t need to hide anything from your parents or your friends, which takes a lot of pressure off your back and helps strengthen your relationship with them.

You will know that the person you are with, is with you for YOU. Your personality, your interests, and all of the great things about you besides sexuality.

Statistics show that teens who practise sexual abstinence are less likely to have depression, less likely to attempt suicide, less likely to live in poverty as adults.

Statistics show that teens who practise sexual abstinence are likely to do better in school. (Twice as likely to graduate from college than teens who do not practise abstinence).

Amos Moses

WOW ….. what a terrible idea ……… /SARC ………

Rookheight

You posted this twice, and I responded above as well, but it’s missing the point to an embarrassing degree.

No one is arguing that sexual abstinence isn’t a good idea for teenagers. Comprehensive sex education will make all the points you’re making.

The only questions are whether or not teachers should follow that up with information about contraception, and whether or not schools should shame those teens who choose to have sex. For faith-based sex ed groups like this, they say “no” to the first and “yes” to the second, which is utterly ridiculous.

Amos Moses

“The only questions are whether or not teachers”

not a teachers job ….. it is a parents job ……..

Rookheight

Then opt your kids out of sex ed at school. For those parents who trust the school to provide sex ed to their kids, the classes must not be abstinence-only.

Tangent002

That would be great…if every parent was responsible and engaged with their kids. Many aren’t or are simply uncomfortable having “the talk” with their children. Many parents are operating on outdated or patently wrong information from when they grew up.

Netizen_James

Yes, faith-based organizations have no place in our secular public schools. You want your kids to have a faith-based education, send them to a faith-based school.

Oh, you can’t afford it? What, the faith-communities can’t run their schools without exorbitant tuition fees from the parents? Why not? Don’t these faith-communities believe in volunteering and community service? Or are they really just in it for the money?

You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Take some time to read up on the separation between state and church, and sexual education. I’m not being facetious, I’m just legitimately throwing you a lifeline if you want to understand the world better. You give religious people a bad name when you display such flagrant and unabashed ignorance.

Copyleft

I hope your misunderstanding is deliberate. “Atheism” isn’t taught in public schools; rather, schools stay neutral on religious topics, as required by law.

As for what your religion considers “deviant sexual behavior” and “mental illness”… well, who cares? Your religion has no power over our government.

Jason Todd

“Atheism” isn’t taught in public schools

If a teacher makes reference to the creation of the universe without acknowledging even the possibility of a creator, they are teaching atheism. Period.

This is not a point of contention.

As for what your religion considers “deviant sexual behavior” and “mental illness”… well, who cares?

People who don’t believe in a moral and sexual anarchy. That’s who.

Ambulance Chaser

Yes it is a point of contention, and no amount of stomping your foot or firm declarations will change that. I disagree with it.

Rookheight

Failing to mention a creator god is not the same as teaching students that it doesn’t exist. By your perspective, it would be impossible for schools to be neutral; they would have to choose between theism and atheism.

But that’s not how neutrality works. Public schools can, and typically do, describe what we know without saying whether any gods exist or don’t. Kids can draw their own conclusions. That’s not teaching atheism.

The courts, and public schools, sorted this out decades ago. You’re right that it’s not a point of contention, but your conclusion is wrong.

Sharon_at_home

When they discuss Evolution and how the World was created… do they also go into the belief of some people that God created the world? No Neither Evolution Nor Religion have good solid proof that either are the right answer, but schools can’t teach about God being the creator and only teach about Evolution. That is discrimination whether it is because “science” isn’t a religion but the belief in God is never allowed to be considered as true in a school environment. So how about not teaching Evolution as the “true” creation story since there is no solid proof. Only theories that say “this happens now” – but it doesn’t necessarily mean it happened when the world was created. One belief should not be taught if the other one is not allowed to be taught too. People can make an informed choice if they are given both sides, without bias, but they can’t without each side. So basically by not allowing creationism they are telling the students that evolution is true and there is no other way that the world could have been created. Discrimination can go both ways.

Rookheight

You seem to be confusing evolution and cosmology. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and describes how species change over time. This is backed up by very solid, observable, and testable evidence.

Cosmology is in the realm of physics and discusses the origin of the universe. High school physics classes usually don’t spend much time on it, but when it does come up teachers should be discussing it the same way as they do at the college level: they discuss evidence that is observable and testable (testable with math, in the case of cosmology).

In both cases, the best framework to understand the available evidence is scrutinized by scientists and then becomes part of the body of “scientific theory.” If someone has a religious idea that they think is at play beyond that body of theory, for example that the god Cerus makes our crops grow, public school science classes cannot weigh in on whether that is true or not, since it is not part of science. They are not obligated to—and are actually prohibited from—presenting that religious instruction as “another side” of the scientific theory, as you put it.

That’s not discrimination, and those who convinced you that it is either don’t understand science or are intentionally deceiving you.

Sharon_at_home

Fine I used the wrong word, although that is always what I have read it as Evolution. regardless. they should be allowed to show both sides just as they would if it was explained in science that there can be two possibilities for a conclusion of an experiment.
There is NO WAY to be Sure of how the earth was made by anyone now, because no one was there. So how can science keep saying it “knows” this is true when that’s impossible. They can say they “recreated” the same whatever, but they can’t even know that that recreation is correct. I imagine a lot of things were a lot different than they are now too. As far as the original creation goes – science is just guess-work. The bible details it and if you believe you can’t imagine how it is anything else.
The one thing that always seems to come up though is how all of nature depends on each other to survive – that the design of the human body is just a random thing? I’m sorry I can’t believe it happened like that when the body parts and nature within itself work so well together.
You see the one reason you won’t be able to change my mind is because I have Faith and it over-rides any idea that there isn’t a God. It’s not that I insist you believe in God, it’s just that I won’t believe in what your Science tells you. You have the right to believe whatever you want and I have the same right. God bless!

Rookheight

I’m certainly not asking you to become an atheist—it’s just that although you’re being reasonable, your misunderstanding of science is leading you to the wrong conclusions about how science class should work.

I won’t go into details about your specific misstatements about science—cosmology is more than guesswork, the design of the human body isn’t random, and others—but I can’t let you off the hook with comparing “two possibilities for a conclusion of an experiment” with including Christianity in a science curriculum alongside scientific theory.

Science, if taught correctly, presents evidence and theories that best fit that evidence, with the understanding that we are ready to abandon our theories if contrary evidence ever comes up. Religious faith is different, as you admitted: faith overrides any contrary evidence because faith is nothing more than believing something without sufficient evidence. If someone has to invoke faith for a belief in something, that belief is not science and cannot be part of a science curriculum.

They are not are two equal explanations for the same thing, because one is based on faith and the other is based on science. Science classes do not teach faith-based belies. If they did, they’d have to teach ALL of the faith-based beliefs, which you probably wouldn’t approve of either.

Sharon_at_home

Then why can’t they say it is a theory not saying it has to be the truth? When science talks about it they always say it like it is the only way it could have happened instead of making it clear that it is a theory not something that can be proven. No one can prove what the earth environment or anything else is what they say it is because there is no way to know. So they have a theory that also rules out God, and they promote it as the truth and only way.
They should be stressing that it is all theory because it can’t be proven that it would happen exactly like what they claim.
No evidence can be found about the earth just after it was created. Too many things could have changed from then to now that might not be detected in an investigation.
So science doesn’t say there is no God when they are discussing how the world came to be?

Rookheight

Correct, science (current cosmological theory) does not say that there are no gods. You could insert a god into the theory, but there’s no need, so by a mechanism called Occam’s Razor we leave that superfluous detail out. If evidence ever pointed to a god, it would become part of the theory.

You’re right that science teachers often don’t do a good enough job explaining about the limits of scientific understanding, and the fact that science can change over time as we learn more. However, certain parts of scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution, really have been “proven” in the lay sense of the term. They can never be proven with mathematical certainty, but from a practical perspective there’s no way that we are totally wrong about either one, and it would be dishonest to teach these theories as though they were questionable. But I agree that this is a discussion that should be happening more in science classrooms.

Small nitpicky point: there is evidence about the universe just after it came into being, not to mention the earth’s more recent formation. We can detect background microwave radiation that gives us information about the universe when it was very young, which is fascinating and awesome. There’s lots of historic evidence like this that we can observe today to learn about the past, which is why it’s silly to argue “no one was there, so we can’t know.”

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and keep learning!

Netizen_James

Each and every student has every right to pray and to talk to other students regarding faith-related subjects in any context in which they would otherwise be free to think about sex or talk to other students about Spongebob Squarepants. Anyone who tells you different is trying to get money out of you.

But that’s not good enough for those who want to corrupt our secular schools and turn them into agents of indoctrination, regardless of the will of those parents who may NOT want their child indoctrinated with other people’s myths. And no, it’s not about ‘majority rule’. If it was about ‘majority rule’, black people would still be slaves. The minority have rights too. That’s why we HAVE a constitution at all.

So if you want government to have the authority to promote ONE set of religious tenets as the ‘officially correct’ ones, then will you still be ok with government having that power when the government decides that all students will face Mecca and pray to Allah? Watch what you wish for. For every authority you wish to grant to government, remember that government may not always do what YOU want it to with that authority. Are you so sure that ‘people like you’ will always enjoy the demographic majority and cultural hegemony you currently have? Think hard now.

And then look up the ‘Philadelphia Bible Riots’ and ask yourself do we really want to repeat that bit of violent nonsense?

And no, you can point to me no facts in support of your vacuous contention that any public school in this country allows, as a matter of policy, any student or staff person to engage in any sexual behavior, deviant or otherwise, on school grounds.

The only people leaving high school stupid are the one’s whose parents wouldn’t let them learn science because the curriculum contradicts their cultural creation myths.

Netizen_James

Do note that lack of promotion of theism is NOT equivalent to a promotion of atheism. Lack of promotion is not a promotion of lack, any more than a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. (by not promoting Coke, are we therefor promoting Pepsi? Of course not.)

As Justice Douglas wrote: “The First Amendment teaches that a government neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious interests.”

How would volunteers and community service make any difference to being able to afford to have a school? You can’t use the general public to educating the students. They need to hire teachers and they require pay; they need to make sure everything is running the way it should which takes people to maintain them… again there is no guarantee that there would be someone in the general public that could do it.
You wouldn’t think the cost of tuition is high if all schools had them. I doubt very much that there is much money left after all the necessities are taken care of each year.
Do you really think that all churches are rich? My God get real. The only church that is rich is the Catholic Church. Basic small churches run on the offering of the members which means if you don’t have a lot of members they have to do something else to manage, like car washes, selling baked goods and garage sales. Most churches do not have a lot of money.
You have to consider all the things that the tuition will be paying for just like you would in a business that isn’t faith based. Other than that one religion, I doubt that a lot of them have excess monies by the end of the year. There’s a lot of money involved when you have a school that is professional whether it’s faith based or not.
Faith communities do believe in volunteering for things that can help others in some way. I don’t imagine people of faith are “in it just for the money” as one of the things the churches focus on is about helping others .

Victoria Martin

You can’t have it both ways. If you want faith-based programs eliminated from your schools, you have to stop teaching your kids to pray to Allah and memorize their scriptures.

Jason

Which public schools are “teaching your kids to pray to Allah and memorize their scriptures?”

Tangent002

None. It’s an urban legend based on schools taking field trips to mosques or doing Middle Eastern calligraphy as a part of a Social Studies or Human Geography class.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Texas for one.

Jason

Don’t know if this is true or not… it sounds very unlikely, but if it isn’t true then they are wrong as well. There are no favorites and no public school should try to indoctrinate their students. But there is a grey area. Religion can be taught in a generic world studies type of class which could include important figures, gods, locations, origin stories, history, and daily practices.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Of course it’s true. Google it. You should try going to a Canadian school. Islam is shoved down the students’ throats.

This style 10/6

You obviously know nothing about Canada. Public schools don’t shove any religion down any throats.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I live and was raised in Canada. We are forced to accommodate Islam all the time.

This style 10/6

That is not the same and we are forced to do nothing of the sort. Any reasonable person accomodates Islam so long as its adherents are peaceful and obey the law. The same can be said of Christians.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

If a student can’t get a passing grade or gets kicked out for not saying the shahida or writing an assignment about the five pillars of Islam, you don’t think that’s being forced?

Rookheight

Your stories about growing up in “liberal, wealthy Canada” seem to be far-fetched. Are you sure you didn’t actually grow up in Alabama, and maybe just thought it was liberal, wealthy Canada?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

It’s only far fetched to you because you are upset it proves you wrong. Google it. Google teen pregnancy rates, not just in Canada, but the UK, etc. I got an excellent education in some ways (math, science, literature, languages, etc.) but a poor one when it came to sociological ideals.

Copyleft

Refusing to learn the material and participate in class activities and tests is worth flunking for, yes. No one’s asking them to AGREE with the ideals of Islam–just to know that they exist.

Question: Why does that frighten and anger you so much? Should schools pretend that non+Christians don’t exist, and have played no role in world history?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

They make them say the shahada. That counts as conversion in Islam. It’s one thing to learn about other religions, it’s another to convert students. The Christian equivalent of what they are doing would be having students recite the sinner’s prayer, being baptized, having the laying on of hands, and taking communion. Before you start trying to preach at me about Islam, know that I come from a family of Muslims. I’m the only Christian.

Sharon_at_home

The major problem in the article I read was that when they said had recited the Shahada, they were told that they were now Islamic and should follow Islam. The one girl in the article had refused to say it and that’s how it got in the news I expect. If I remember correctly the parents went to the school to ask that their daughter be excused and be given another assignment and the school would not agree.
I have no idea why this school refused.
I’m sorry I can’t provide more about the case. My memory fades sometimes.

Copyleft

Ahh, I see the problem. You consider “accommodating” Islam to be the same as “shoving it down your throat.” No wonder you’re confused–you think equal treatment is prejudice!

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

See my other post explaining to you what shahada is. Also note my family background before you preach at me. 🙂

james blue

Well that’s a lie.

0pus

Another peroxide addict.

tatoo

I certainly taught my daughter about protection and birth control. Who needed bastards or abortions. Not to mention STDs. Now, at 40, she has had no bastards or abortions or STDs. Instead, 2 wonderful children that were planned and can be supported. Why would anyone want their child to not know the truth and all the options?

Micahel Morris

cause if you don’t think their way, then you are thinking the wrong way

0pus

Old “Kinglust” just changed her name again.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I went to a very progressive public school where sex education was taught explicitly and early. Condoms were readily available. Didn’t do much to stop teenaged pregnancies, and we’re talking kids who should have known better (parents were doctors, etc.). I did have 2 Christian teachers who taught us the Bible and I never forgot them for sharing light in the midst of darkness.

Rookheight

If not for the sex education and condom availability, there would have been more teenage pregnancies.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Nonsense. The numbers basically stayed the same. Shouldn’t sex ed have made them drop?

Rookheight

What do you mean “stayed the same”? You said it was taught explicitly and early, so what’s your control? What are you comparing the actual numbers to?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I’m comparing the numbers at a yearly rate. It seems no matter how liberal sex ed gets, or how widespread, pregnancy numbers stay the same or increase. They never go down.

Worf

The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates are almost all very conservative states. Also, partly related, the abortion rate is at a historic low due to improved sex education and improved access to birth control.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I grew up in very liberal Canada in a very wealthy part of town and went to an elite school. Teen pregnancy rates stayed the same or went up. In fact, they’ve never gone down.

Rookheight

This has been measured. You seem to be relying on your personal observations, which simply don’t conform to reality.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

It has been measured, and if you’d just Google teen pregnancy stats you would see it’s on the rise, not just in my country, but all over.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Here, try searching these:

Why teen pregnancy is on the rise again in Canada (and spiking in these provinces)

Teen pregnancy soars (This is from the UK, where sex education is more explicit and begins sooner than in the US)

Rookheight

Does the UK have non-science-based abstinence-only education that has proven to be more effective? If not, then what you’re saying is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

No one is saying that teaching sex education that is “more explicit” will make teen pregnancy plummet world-wide. We’re just saying it’s better than this religious-based alternative, which has clearly been demonstrated in the U.S.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Actually, when religion-based abstinence was taught, teen pregnancy was at an all-time low. Just think back to the past and look at those statistics. The more we take religion out of schools, the higher teen pregnancy rates go.

Rookheight

I think you’re committing a major correlation/causation fallacy (assuming your history is accurate, which I think is generous), but either way the opposite has been shown to be true in the U.S., and we’re talking about Missouri public schools.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

So now that you’ve been proven wrong with statistics you want to focus only on Missouri? If something is true worldwide, and there’s a problem (assuming you are right) in Missouri, wouldn’t logic dictate that there has to be more components than sex ed and religion?

Rookheight

I pointed out the fallacy with your “statistics” claim, so I wouldn’t call that being “proven wrong.”

There are certainly more components than sex ed and religion, which is precisely why your bouncing from country to country is missing the point. Who knows why teen pregnancies are on the rise in other countries, if indeed they are? There could be lots of reasons beyond sex ed and religion.

But what we do know, and what this article is about, is the effect of abstinence-only sex ed on teen pregnancy in the U.S. It makes teen pregnancy go up.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Actually, you denied the stats were there, then you tried to double talk your way around them. The facts remain that, with the decrease in religion, and the increase in sex education, teen pregnancies have gone up. A serious student would question why instead of railing on religion.

Rookheight

I thought you were talking about your particular town. If you look it up nationally, you’ll see that there’s a lot of data showing that comprehensive sex education DOES reduce teen pregnancy rates, quite substantially.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I’m talking about the country, and no, it does not show a reduction in teen pregnancies at all.

Rookheight

I’m not sure if they didn’t let my comment through because I included a link, but google this and you will see. The data is very clear and very strong that sex education reduces teen pregnancy, so long as it’s real sex education and not just abstinence-only.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Google actual teen pregnancy rates and you will see they are on the rise, not just in Canada, but all over.

Rookheight

I don’t know what world you’re living in, but it’s not reality. Google “teen pregnancy rates us” and “teen pregnancy rates uk.” You’ll see the CDC’s research showing a massive decrease over time in the U.S.m and articles about how and why teen pregnancy rates have fallen in the U.K. over the past two decades. The UK has higher rates than other countries in western Europe, but that’s a completely separate issue.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I already gave you the titles of most recent studies to Google. They show they are on the rise. You must be inept at using a search engine. Not only check the date on what you are reading, but check the abortion rates, etc. You are confusing live births with those who were pregnant and opted to abort.

Alma Gayle

It’s not just ‘atheist groups’ that have an issue with Thrive/Best Choice. Your article is beyond misleading.

Ben Welliver

Then go read something that confirms your own anti-Christian biases. Don’t stress yourself by reading things by people who are different from you. Bigoted people like you are better off inside your bubble where people all think the same way.

Ambulance Chaser

But not like you, right? You’re open-minded? You want to learn all sides of a story?

Then you should listen when people point out errors in websites that you like to read.

Sharon_at_home

I listen when they are not trying to force their opinion on us. Talking about different subjects is fine as long as they are not insisting they are right and we are wrong (or idiots for our belief).
When they start to randomly say rude things I have trouble hearing the other side to an issue.

Rookheight

I think it was a fairly innocent mistake. FFRF complained about this group and this article is reporting on FFRF’s letters.

But I do agree that the underlying tone seems to be that “the evil atheists are at it again,” where they could have taken the time to investigate the issue and realize that tons of religious people are on FFRF’s side of this.

Jason Todd

*sigh* Here we go again.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Missouri elected officials are smart enough to know and understand this is a problem that can easily go away.

Just respond in this manner:

“Dear FFRF:

Thank you for your letter. We would consider your recommendations, but as you have thus far declined any action regarding the teaching of Islam in public schools, the presence of an Islamic prayer room in a Texas high school, and the permeation of Islam in Dearborn, MI, we have decided to ignore you until these issues are addressed.

Have a Nice Day,

Signature”

In other words, you point out their anti-Christian bigotry and hypocrisy, and they’ll leave you alone.

james blue

Other than the times FFRF go after Islam in public schools you are right, they haven’t.

Copyleft

But those apparently don’t count, because they don’t feed the “poor persecuted Christians” narrative. Then again, facts seldom do.

Rookheight

I guess they won’t let my response with a link through. Google “FFRF answering fox news” and you’ll see a clear, documented refutation of your claim that FFRF is anti-Christian. They are atheists that want the government to be secular; why would they care whether it’s Islam, Buddhism, or Christianity that the government is promoting?

As an aside, FFRF also regularly sues school districts and other gov’t entities that flagrantly continue to violate the law after receiving a letter of complaint. Your suggestion would just cost school districts money by inviting lawsuits to try to “prove a point.”

Jason Todd

Which means what? Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? Because it doesn’t dispute a single word I said.

Now, you could be saying they also go after Buddhists, etc. That’s a lie. Someone actually cited this lame show case where they sued some Muslims for teaching Islam at a Muslim school as “evidence” they go after Muslims. But their actions say they are liars, bigots and hypocrites and nothing else.

Go take your cheerleading somewhere else.

Rookheight

You’ve been misled. Whatever you’re referring to about suing “some Muslim for teaching Islam at a Muslim school” did not happen, because FFRF doesn’t sue religious schools for teaching religion, nor would the ACLU, AU, AHA, or any other First Amendment watchdog group.

When you say that “their actions say they are liars, bigots and hypocrites and nothing else,” I can only assume you mean that every time you hear about FFRF, it seems like they’re going after Christianity. That’s why I pointed you to an article rebutting exactly that point. If FFRF is going after Christianity more than other religions, that means that Christianity is currently more of a problem than other religions, and nothing else.

But please, pass on credible evidence of a public school promoting Islam (not just teaching *about* Islam) to FFRF and see what they say. If you are a local complainant with a legitimate complaint, they will complain on your behalf. And good luck finding that credible evidence.

Jason Todd

Whatever you’re referring to about suing “some Muslim for teaching Islam at a Muslim school” did not happen,

So you are saying then the FFRF has never gone after clear cut cases where it’s about Islam instead of Christianity?

Thanks!

But please, pass on credible evidence of a public school promoting Islam

Already did in this very thread.

The thing is, I do not need to prove anything to you. That’s not why I am here. I knew the God hating, anti-Christian bigots would come out of the woodwork the minute I posted my comment. And I also knew you won’t be changing any minds here anymore than I would because you cannot see past your hate.

No, my intent is to educate those who already do believe, to see through the lies and intellectual dishonesty nearly all atheists (but especially activists, like those who make up the FFRF, etc) carry.

Rookheight

Your reading comprehension needs some work. You might want to slow down and re-read what people are saying to you in this thread, then come up with a response that doesn’t utterly miss every point we’re making.

But hey, if your goal is to “educate those who already believe,” have at it. You’re a better ambassador for atheism than you know.

Jason Todd

Apparently you have a problem with facts. That’s not unexpected.

It never hurts to know what you’re talking about and not peddle horsedung as truth.

The people you refer to did precisely that, driven by bias and hatred. What points were they making? It’s what one would call a dumpster fire.

Tangent002

Accommodating the prayer needs of Islamic students is not “teaching Islam”.

BravesFan

But accommodating the prayer needs of Christians is “forcing religion”?

Tangent002

Christian kids can pray in school; they cannot be led in prayer by faculty or pray in a way that is distracting to other kids.

BravesFan

So prayer rooms just for muslims aren’t distracting to other kids? What if there was a Christian prayer room with a cross on the wall?

Ambulance Chaser

“So prayer rooms just for muslims aren’t distracting to other kids?”

I doubt it. They’re just classrooms that Muslim students sometimes pray in when they’re empty.

“What if there was a Christian prayer room with a cross on the wall?”

That would be grossly unconstitutional.

BravesFan

At least you’re open about your hypocrisy.

Ambulance Chaser

What hypocrisy would that be?

Jason Todd

I did not say that. Re-read my comments.

Copyleft

Too bad that’s 1) incorrect, and 2) ineffective.

Islam is not being “taught” in public schools; it’s being MENTIONED in geography, history, and social-studies courses right alongside other major religions. There’s a difference between teaching and preaching.

And ignoring the FRRF and hoping they go away is guarantee of failure–possibly very costly failure in court. Because they don’t “leave you alone” when you’re violating church/state separation in defiance of the Constitution.

Jason Todd

Islam is not being “taught” in public schools

“Lawsuit: Public school forced my child to convert to Islam,” Fox News, 01-29-16

“NJ middle school sued for indoctrinating kids in Islam,” One News Now, 04-06-17

Try again.

And ignoring the FRRF and hoping they go away is a guarantee of failure–possibly very costly failure in court. Because they don’t “leave you alone” when you’re violating church/state separation in defiance of the Constitution.

1) How do you know this?

2) Why are you defending them? Is it because you hate Christians?

Copyleft

Yes, Fox News was lying as usual. No child has been forced to convert to Islam by a public school. They were demonstrating that they learned about the ideals of Islam, not swearing allegiance to it.

Again, teaching is not the same as preaching. TRY AGAIN.

How do I know the FRRF doesn’t ‘eave people alone’ when they violate church/state separation? Because of their case history and reporting in national media. The notion they’ll “shut up and go away” is wishful thinking; there’s no indication that they’ve let ANYONE get away with religious indoctrination in public schools, no matter how many nasty letters they receive.

Sharon_at_home

I would think ‘forcing’ a child to repeat the Islam creed is indoctrination. If they told them about it and didn’t insist on them repeating while telling them that by saying it the person is now Islamic. You don’t think that is trying to sway them to Islam? And shouldn’t it be the parents right to have a child opt out of a class and be assigned another topic? It can’t be a ‘required’ class so anyone should be able to opt out.

Chris

It depends upon the purpose of the class.

In Australia where I live some classes are elective and others are mandatory.

Jason Todd

1) Horsefeathers. You didn’t even read the articles.

2) The FFRF has said nothing about either of the three cases of “church/state separation (myth)” I cited. That’s how I know.

3) You have shown zero credibility, choosing consistently to defend an anti-Christian organization without regard to actual facts.

You are blocked.

Sharon_at_home

If you believe that Islam isn’t taught in public schools you haven’t been reading the news. There is one school that made the children say the verse that means they have accepted Islam as the only religion, and taught the 5 pillars of Islam and made them write in arabic the words of the prayers. That is what we talk about when we say Islam is being taught in public schools. Parents are freaking out when they find out, but schools still let them teach them that all the others religions are wrong but Islam is the right one.
Apparently Jason Todd is following the news too.

Ambulance Chaser

The FFRF is not required to sue any government entity for a violation of the Establishment Clause in favor of any other religion in order for this complaint to have legal merit. “You’re a hypocrite” is not a defense.

james blue

“If the district wishes to use sex education instructors or curriculum
designers who are not district employees, they should be medical
professionals”

I agree.

Sex ed should be biologically and medically factual, It should deal with mechanics

Mr Cleats

This whole thread is a joke. The atheists claim that abstinence education is ineffective. They neither know nor care if it’s effective or not, the only thing important to them is that they oppose anything the Christians do. They don’t care about the kids, they care about their own agenda of marginalizing and ostracizing Christians. And just a reminder: most atheists are single males, so their opinions on the sex education of children are essentially worthless. People who actually have children are the only ones who care about the welfare of children.

Ambulance Chaser

Did you not see the study posted by Lexical Cannibal below stating abstinence only sex ed only leads to more unwanted pregnancies? Do you need more citations?

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Did you not see the studies I referred to that proved otherwise?

Ambulance Chaser

No because you didn’t refer to any. The only thing you said was “Google this or that.” That’s not citing anything.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

I gave the exact titles of the articles.

Tangent002

“The atheists claim that abstinence education is ineffective.”

That is not what I am saying. There is ample evidence that abstinence-only sex ed is less effective than more comprehensive approaches. I am not aware of any study that compares schools with A-O sex ed to schools with no sex ed at all.

BTW, I have two sons.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You keep repeating that as if it is true. Statistics prove otherwise.

Rookheight

No, they don’t.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Of course they do which is why there are headlines like “Teen pregnancies on the rise” all over the world. Go to where the most sophisticated sex ed courses are taught (and where anything related to religion is omitted) and you will find teen pregnancy rates are highest. That’s why there’s been a steady increase in teen pregnancy rates since religion has been taken out of the classroom. Those are facts.

Rookheight

No, they’re not. Teen pregnancy rates in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada have been declining for the last 25 years. Your unusual confidence convinced me to look it up in some more depth, and you are either grossly misled and have never bothered to look, or you are lying through your teeth.

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

You must have old studies. I already gave you the titles of recent studies to Google. Anyone here can Google those same titles and see that what I say is true.

Rookheight

You cited to:

1) The Daily Mail, a British tabloid newspaper. The article has no date on it, no links or citations to any studies, just bald claims, and even admits that teen pregnancy has decreased by 9% since 1988, but claims a recent short-term “uptick”; and

2) A Canadian article from 2013 that also shows short-term increases and blames socio-economic stress, not a lack of religion in schools.

Sorry!

Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

1.) The Daily Mail printed a government study. That’s why there were no links to a study. It was the actual study. 🙂

2.) The 2013 article sited an increase in teen pregnancies which was what the contention was. I told you teen pregnancies were on the rise and you disputed that fact. Their conclusions are their own. Of course a secular study won’t mention religion.

Mr Cleats

These “sons” came out of a turkey baster, right?

Tangent002

Nope.

Copyleft

Actually, the evidence shows quite clearly that these programs are NOT effective. The one who doesn’t care about facts is you.

Tina

Actually, I am a 48 year old woman and I have been married to my husband for almost 22 years (we’ve been together for 26 years). We have three children (ages 19, 17, and 11). We chose to have our babies. No one forced us. We have also chosen not to lie to our children about sex or anything else for that matter. And we are atheists. We are atheists that care about all humans and animals. I’m assuming you’re a Christian because of your defensiveness and your irrational comment. Believe what you want. That’s your right. However, please don’t use your particular religion as an excuse to lie to our children when they are in public schools. If you must lie to children, then lie to your own. Leave my children alone. Thank you.
Oh, and before you attack me, please know that my youngest child has autism and is developmentally delayed, so he has no idea about sex. When the time comes and he asks us, his dad and I will talk openly and honestly with him about it just as we have with our older children. No STDs or unintended pregnancies in this home and we live in Texas! (Texas: big on abstinence only and ranked #1 in repeat teen pregnancies). Take that to the bank…

bobbe_lowe

are there any evidence they work on NON BELIEVERS? is it REALISTIC TO EXPECT a person to act in the standard set up by the scripture BEFORE they are a Christian?

Eric Rainbow

This thread is really an embarrassment to read, never saw so much shameless bigotry on display. If you don’t agree with these people, they hate you and wish to destroy you. Truly sickening. If this is “love,” I want no part of it.

Amos Moses

and your idea of “love” is what ….. precisely please ………

Sharon_at_home

Sorry for the late reply.
I think “Treat people the way you want to be treated” is showing love to others. They don’t always reciprocate and they might treat me badly instead, but that’s what some people do. If the contact is regular, by continuing to treat them well, it’s likely they will eventually change their attitude. So really, if the Christians that follow Jesus behave in a way that ‘shines their light’ Other people would start following the Golden rule too.

Amos Moses

people are not going to repent if they do not know what to repent for and why …. telling them the truth is the way i would like to be treated ……….. not being lied to is the way i would like to be treated …… patting people on the head and whispering warm fuzzies in their ears is not “loving” ……. it is pandering and partonizing ….. and it is not the gospel ….

Sharon_at_home

A lot of what you have been reading are not the Christians that come to this page. Some people come to antagonize each other, including people that say they are Christians.
If I could point you to a thread that doesn’t have the haters in it I would but the antagonizers go to any Christian page so I doubt there is one.
There are people who call themselves Christian but don’t follow the Word of God. Then there are the Christians who do follow the Word of God who do try to spread love around. As with anything, there are always good people and bad people in any organization and it’s usually the bad ones that get the most attention.
Not all Christians will comment on these boards because of the direction of the thread too. I don’t always, but I do when it’s something that it’s a matter of personal choice. I think everyone should let others have their beliefs and not let it bother them that a stranger has beliefs that they don’t agree with. But I guess that’s how the world is today.

Copyleft

Seems like a reasonable objection. After all, the program IS teaching ignorance (whoops, I mean abstinence, a proven failure of an approach)… and public schools have no business promoting religion-based agendas in the first place.

Sharon_at_home

Abstinence is not only about religion you know. it’s a valid way to avoid pregnancy, whether it came from religions or not. I’m sure the teachers are not stating that it is in the bible, but rather that it is a method of birth control.

Copyleft

True, but the program is ‘abstinence-ONLY’ birth control… and that is quite specifically religious. (Not to mention incomplete and proven ineffective.)

BravesFan

Why is abstinence SO darn offensive to people?? Like they can’t stand the very thought that some kids out there aren’t jumping everything that moves at every opportunity. We are not animals. Even teenagers can exhibit self-control.

mikegillespie

The same people who say “zero tolerance for bullying” also say “kids are going to have sex no matter what.” In other words, they are stupid and inconsistent, as liberals are, always.

Ambulance Chaser

A) I don’t see any hypocrisy between those positions and
B) I’ve never heard “the same people” say those things.

Rookheight

No one is saying they are offended by abstinence; you’ve completely misunderstood the complaints here. The problem is that teaching ONLY abstinence is ineffective and leads to higher rates of teenage pregnancy.

Think of it this way: imagine there was a problem with teenagers drinking both soda and sulfuric acid. Those who drink soda get bad teeth, while those who drink sulfuric acid die immediate, horrible deaths. When you teach healthy drinking habits, you might start with “only drink water.” But if you know that a certain percentage of kids will disobey this instruction anyway, it would be idiotic to fail to mention that drinking sulfuric acid is far worse than drinking soda.

No one is arguing that drinking soda is healthy—but if they’re going to drink unhealthy stuff anyway, you can’t let them kill themselves because they are uneducated. It’s the same with teaching about sex. Abstinence is great and should be advocated, but these groups stop there, which destroys kids’ lives.

Grace Kim Kwon

Yes, purity-before-marriage is the only right way. Christian education is the only good and moral education; American children need it as well as the world’s chldren, to live happily for lifetime. It should not be opposed by any.

Rookheight

Reality disagrees. If you are against abortions, you should be against abstinence-only sex education. You can keep Christian education, just not in public schools.

Grace Kim Kwon

“Public” should not mean immoral. All children have rights to be taught morality. Immorality is sinful and harmful; the Biblical morality is right and brings true happiness (blessedness).

Rookheight

You can equate Christian dogma with morality if you want, but you have no right to ask the government to impose that sectarian belief on public school children.

Imagine if someone said that the tenets of Satanism were right, so only those things that make Satan happy are morally right and bring true happiness (“blessedness”), and therefore that’s what public schools should teach. You would disagree, I’m sure; wouldn’t you object to the government teaching this Satanic dogma to your children?

Grace Kim Kwon

Satanism is not a religion but an evil. West’s mock religions are not a religion. Christianity is the only good life-rescuing religion. Ex-christian West forces immorality and evil upon the people. Unbelieving Western whites and their air-headed mental slaves need the Bible-literate Christianity for the truth and morality and freedom this century.

You guys got too bored from having everything on a starving planet and are too drugged by the liberals and are too disrespectful towards your own forefathers. I feel sorry for your ancestors to have such gosless meaningless descendants. You must repent of your sin to get saved and behave like a human being. Read John 3.

Rookheight

I used to laugh at the sheepish laziness of your posts, but I can only feel bad for you more recently. You really have no answer to any challenge other than, “but I’m right! Christianity is true because the Christian book says it’s true! Since you disagree, you are wrong!”

Most people can see the problem with this by the time they finish elementary school. Someday I hope you’ll realize that blind faith is a vice. If a god exists, he would never reward such lazy thinking. Read a book (any book) other than the bible.

Grace Kim Kwon

Ex-christian West is such a Sodom that it proved that Christianity has been right in the entire universe. Secular West has no value other than abortion murder, suicide, nudism, and immorality. You Western whites need Christianity to be saved and become moral. People have rights to the truth and morality. No Christianity = No morality.

Sharon_at_home

Why do you say blind faith is a vice?
Faith is believing something even though you can’t see it.
Some of us have had personal experiences with God and that has encouraged us to have Faith in God.
I don’t think I’d say that blind faith is a vice, because to a Christian that follows the Jesus in the Bible, that is what our belief is – Faith.
I guess it would be considered a vice to someone who doesn’t believe in Our God, but not for a Christian. :~D

Rookheight

That sounds like “special pleading” to me—you are admitting that faith would be a vice for non-Christians, but you think it’s good for Christians because you think you’re right. If you were talking to a Muslim who said that he believed in Islam because of faith, wouldn’t you encourage him not to rely on that faith too much, since it’s just a product of his upbringing? That’s really all I’m saying, but I’m applying that logic to everyone evenly.

You call it “believing something even though you can’t see it,” I call it “believing something on bad evidence.”

Amos Moses

‘Atheism Is The Only Logical Worldview,’ Says Man Who Was Converted To Atheism By Memes

Grace Kim Kwon

Liberal scholars lie that teaching purity is ineffective, but it is in reality. The Holy Bible commands to teach children the way of the Lord. We should not trust the liberals’ data because liberal scholars are like the liberal media in lying; they are the ones who corrupted the nations beyond repair by giving false information.

Rookheight

You are delusional. Look up the data and attack the methodologies if you think they are flawed. Otherwise you are just calling people names because you have no better argument.

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →